Dismissed

A.P.Narayanan Kutty v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Nov 2015WP(C)/22783/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected a writ petition challenging the refusal to renew an explosive licence. The petitioner held a licence for manufacturing gunpowder and fireworks. The renewal was denied following a report that the licensee was a cheque in a fire mishap case, a mass petition from locals fearing danger, and investigations recommending cancellation due to safety risks. The court found no arbitrarines

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the non-renewal of the explosive licence is dismissed.

A.P.Narayanan Kutty Vs State of Kerala — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/12TH KARTHIKA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 22783 of 2012 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

A.P.NARAYANAN KUTTY, AGED 41 YEARS

¶8

S/O.KUNJAN, ARUMAKUZHI PARAMBIL HOUSE, KAVALAPPARA, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)

¶10

SMT.M.M.DEEPA

¶11

SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶12

SRI.UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.

¶15

2. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR. 680 001.

¶16

3. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSION FOR LAND REVENUE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.

¶17

4. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD. 679 121.

¶18

BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.J.MICHAEL

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 22783 of 2012 (W)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶23

P1- TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE RENEWED UPTO 31.03.2011 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

P2- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.351/SS/2011 DATED 24.02.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶25

P3- TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DATED 15.03.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

P4- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C6-11528/11/K.DIS. DATED 04.05.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

P5- TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶28

P6- TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN LR A5 29585/2011.

¶29

P7- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.08.2012 IN LR (A) 5 29585/2011 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶30

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

¶31

R2(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION RECEIVED BY THIS RESPONDENT

OKB

True copy

P.A. to Judge

K.HARILAL, J.

W.P.(C) No.22783 of 2012

¶37

Dated this the 3^rd day of November, 2015.

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

The petitioner herein was the holder of an Explosive Licence bearing No.1246, in Form No.20, for the manufacture of 5 Kg. of gun powder and 10 Kg. of fireworks in Re-Sy.No.132/5 of Chemmanthatta Village, Talappilly Taluk of Thrissur District. He is aggrieved by the dismissal of his application for renewal of the above said licence by the 2^nd respondent as well as the confirmation of the order of dismissal by the 3^rd respondent in appeal.

¶40

Heard the The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶41

Going by Ext.P4 it is seen that the petitioner had a licence to manufacture 5 kg. of gun powder and 10 kg. of fireworks in Re-Sy.no.132/5 of Chemmanthatta Village, Talappilly Taluk of Thrissur District and the said licence expired on 31.3.2011. On 23.2.2011 he applied for renewal of the said licence and

¶42

WP(C).22783/12 :2:

¶43

that application was rejected mainly on the ground that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shornur has reported that the petitioner has been involved in the case connected with fire mishap occurred at Thrangali at Palakkad District on 1.2.2011 and he is the 3^rd accused in the above said case. So also, the Deputy Superintendent requested to cancel the above licence. It is also reported that a mass petition has been received against the explosive manufacturing unit of the petitioner and the above petition has been enquired through the Tahsildar, Talappilly and the District Police Chief (Rural), Thrissur. A hearing was conducted on 11.3.2011 and 15.3.2011 by the Additional District Magistrate, on the mass petition. Both the Tahsildar and the District Police Chief had reported that the explosion had been occurred on 3.3.2011 in the manufacturing unit possessed by the petitioner and the above unit is dangerous to the life of the people and recommended for cancellation of explosive licence.

¶44

Going by the above reasoning, it is seen that

¶45

the licensing authority has conducted an enquiry and

¶46

WP(C).22783/12 :3:

¶47

obtained reports from the concerned revenue and police authorities and the application for renewal of licence was denied on the basis of those reports. As rightly observed in Ext.P7, none of the authorities have recommended for renewal of the explosive licence of the petitioner/applicant. When the people residing in the locality raised serious objection, apprehending danger to their life, such objections cannot be brushed aside lightly. So also, by the registration of the crime implicating the petitioner as the 3^rd accused, it stands proved that the petitioner is incapable as well as unfit to deal with the explosive substances. I do not find any kind of arbitrariness or mala fides in the reasonings given by the competent authorities. On the other hand, I find that the reasons for which the application for renewal of the licence stands denied are justifiable, at any view point.

¶48

This writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶49

Sd/K. HARILAL, JUDGE

¶50

okb.

A.P.Narayanan Kutty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.P.Narayanan Kutty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Krishnakumar Vs the Vellanadu Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.2379

M.v.Viswanathan Vs Kerala Water Authority

M/S. Xavier Institute of Management and Entrepreneurship (Xime) Vs Sub Registrar

K.Naseer Vs the State of Kerala

Modern Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Baijumon Joseph Vs Institute of Human Resources Development